Seeing how less stabbings happen over here (and less violent crime overall), I wouldn't know. I know I've gotten shot in the foot and had been stabbed and slashed in the hand/arm region and can tell you shooting is a lot cleaner than being stabbed. Plus someone going after you with a knife is more determined to kill you than someone who shot you over your wallet

So something around 5x bigger than a bullet tearing through your muscles sounds better than a hole going clean through you? Ok, dude. And no, you don't get a chance to fight back after getting stabbed. You're sort of more concerned about getting stabbed

1) yes you can fight back against a knife in any situation, its basic science for the brain to make you survive in anyway possible, you might not but you brain will try to fight back if it can
2) A hole clean from a vital organ yer sounds great, except a typical gun holds a 6 bullet magazine no? fire all 6 off into your chest good luck with that one. 6 stab wounds is unlikely to happen, unless it is a murder which using a gun or a knife would make no difference, and you still have more chance of surviving a knife wounds than a gaping hole though your body

No, you don't die immediately from getting shot, dumbass. Just as with stabbing, placement is key. Getting stabbed multiple times is just as possible as getting shot multiple times. What, you think you're gonna go Jason Bourne and doing knife deflects and ****? No, by the time you're stabbed, you're at a severe disadvantage that only gets worse as the fight goes on, leaving you open to more stabs

no your body will defend its self its ******* nature
and your much more likely to die from a gun shot wound that stabbed, a bullet could easily deflect of a bone in your body and cause alot of damage, stabbing a rib cage isnt going to do **** to you rival organs, by vial i mean heart and lungs, stabbed in the stomach easily survivable, abdominal region, easy fix

its alot harder to die from being stabbed to death, your more likely to die from blood lose, a bullet however will destroy anything as it passed through you flesh.

there's even reports of people surviving a knife to the heart.
but obviously you not going to change you opinion so whatever, believe you want and that guns are gods gift to america or some **** like that. good bye

I've never been stabbed or shot. I've never even witnessed a violent crime. In the 12 years that I've lived in my current country, I heard of two incidents of stabbing- one was a stoner who only inflicted light and unintentional harm. The other was a man who stabbed him mother to death, and he was arrested easily, because he woudl have had to get close to the police to stab them, whilst they could quite saftely tazer him from a distance.

>Be Switzerland
>Everyone here owns assault rifles, carries them around on the street while on militia duty
>Have drastically lower crime rate than the UK
>Britfags are so proud that they get stabbed to death instead of shot

i think you mean civil war right??
a revolution is when an oppressed state takes power
for example:
The Thirteen Colonies (America)
Bolshevik party in Russia
French revolution between King Louis XII and the people of France
Communist revolution in china led by Mao

and even if america went to arms about guns it would only be against the people on congress because the army would be on your side for sure. Would be more of a coup

It would be a revolutionary war because a government would be overthrown by its people. It could be a civil war or a revolution depending on how it goes through.
If gun owners nationally form an alliance, then it would be a revolution.
If states succeed to become their own country, it would be a civil war.

I have a problem with this logic here. You say people won't buy guns if they are illegal, yet killing people is illegal too, and it still happens. You are saying we should make laws to stop people from getting items to break laws. What makes you think that people who violate the law will follow this new profound law? The people that wouldn't buy guns because it is illegal are the same people who wouldn't kill people because it is illegal, And the people who would kill people even though it is illegal are the same people who would buy guns even though it is illegal. So, in essence, you are taking guns away from the law abiding majority, while having a significantly lower effect on those that actually commit crimes.

So if guns are legal, a lot more people have guns, yes I understand. I think you are working on the fallacy that guns are evil and magically control themselves and shoot people. A person kills someone. If someone has killing intent, I do not think a gun law will stop them.

I agree that something needs to be done. The US had an arms ban years ago, it didn't work in the slightest. I do not see why we think it will this time. I personally think we need to focus more on the mental health of our citizens, our over-zealous media, and that parents need to learn to be parents.

It's a lot easier to pull a trigger than it is to kill in a different way.
I'm not saying the people behind guns are not responsible, there's no need to be a patronising twat. I'm not saying guns are evil- they have their uses.
However, there are still accidents, people still go on rampages. Let's take one of your numberous public shootings; are you saying that, if the killers didn't have guns, they would have still gone on a muderous rampage? Because we don't get that in the UK, we dont' get stabbing rempages.

Yes, it might be the person, or the culture, but a huge part of that can be controlled with gun laws.

If someone REALLY wants to kill a lot of people, there are nearly an infinite number of ways to do so. Right now I could look up how to make and IED out of fertilizer and blow up my school cafeteria, killing just as many as any massacre. A gun is merely one way of doing this. So I guess yes, I am saying a gun is not needed for a murderous rampage.

So then the problem cannot be directly correlated with guns. We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. People kill people, not objects. This can be backed up with data too. Those total gun death statistics that everyone likes to pull out, the majority of the deaths are suicides. We have an epidemic of mentally impaired people, not gun toting rednecks. Outreach to these mentally unstable people will do a hell of a lot more good than trying to take away everyone's guns, because we tried that already and it did nothing.

No, i've not shot anyone, because guns are illegal in my country.
However, I have shot rifles in military bases and training camps (SAT ranges), and I gotta say, I would have problem shooting someone if I had a gun and a bad day.
However, I could never stab someone. Let alone multiple people. Children.

Great theory - only problem is, the crime statistics don't back it up. There are many times more violent crimes per capita in Britain than in the US. I encourage you to do the research, as I'm too lazy to do it for you.

everyone seems like an idiot here
let me just throw my bit into it.
where i live, everybody owns guns. everybody.
i own more guns than i can count. handguns, shotguns, assault rifles.
no one gets shot. it's extremely rare.
most gun crime happens in cities, and is gang on gang violence.
innocent people don't get randomly shot.
another point i'll make, our cities, like DC, Chicago, NYC, have extremely restrictive gun laws, but still have high gun crime.

its not making them illegal, just assault rifles and hand guns which are designed to kill humans. you can still have hunting weapons, also it is way harder to get a gun in GB than america. GB you have to have a licenses in the US you have to wait two days.

That's another way of looking at it yes. I was just stating a fact because Mr.NRA up there was flat out wrong. As a Eurofag I have no real say in the matter but the way I would propose the law amendment should go is this:

1) The current State laws regarding firearm ownership are to be replaced with National Standard Regulation
2) All fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, specialised ammunition types and shotguns with a magazine tube of more than four shells are to be made illegal for private ownership. These weapons should be stored at gun clubs, sold back to Government authorities, or the owner should register with and actively join a legal militia.
3) Before ownership of any firearm citizens must pass a Firearms Competence Exam which must be renewed every two years.
4) Private sales of firearms is to be made illegal without a license or the supervision of a licensed individual.
5) Doctors/ psychiatrists will have the right to recommend that police confiscate the weapons of individuals for a maximum of thirty days.

If I may interject here, fully automatic weapons are already illegal here in the United States, in fact they've always been illegal since they are classified as "weapons of war". Specialized ammunition and shotguns with more than four shells also can't be obtained here legally (except hollow points I believe those are legal but armor piercing and tracer rounds are definitely illegal). As for high capacity magazines, that has actually already been attempted under the Clinton itemsistration it was called the Assault weapons ban and it included the ban of high capacity magazines, it was supposed to be renewed but it was found to have such a negligible effect on gun crime (it was around .2 or .3%) that they decided against it.

Fully automatic weapons are technically illegal. However, weapons manufactured before 1986 are "grandfathered", and are legal to purchase (although extremely expensive, often costing thousands of dollars, which pretty much reduces them to collector's items) with registration and a $200 tax stamp. I'm pretty sure there are no magazine restrictions on shotguns (unless his state has harsher regulations than on the federal level. Like I said, there's irregularity in State laws). The 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban did restrict several features on firearms, but it was allowed to expire in 2004 because it was deemed ineffective in preventing crime (as is stated by the FBI).

1) I do believe that the irregularity of State laws causes problems and efforts should be made to normalize them. What good is a magazine capacity restriction in New York if J. D. Thugg can cross the state line and get a 33-round Glock magazine? It just handicaps law-abiding citizens and does nothing to stop actual criminals. It's a feel-good law and nothing more.
2) That's far too harsh. I say that if you're safe, stable, and sane, then you should be free to own whatever you feel you want or need. The vast majority of firearms owners in the U.S. are actually safe, stable individuals. Over 290,000,000 firearms were NOT used in a violent crime yesterday, and I bet you can expect to see a similar statistic tomorrow.
3) I'm fine with licensing. Hell, go for graduated licensing like we have in Canada. However, to comply with their current Second Amendment rights, licenses should be issued on a "will issue" basis, with applications only being rejected if the applicant is a violent criminal (Lucky Brother Dooby Dooby's safe. He isn't harming anyone) or has a history of mental health problems causing violent behavior.
4) That goes with licensing, but isn't realistically enforceable without a full firearms registry (which is a horrible bureaucratic nightmare. We scrapped our Canadian Long Gun registry because it was deemed inefficient and did little to affect gun crime, and we don't have anywhere near the number of guns in our country as they do State-side).
5) See point 4.

But it wouldn't stop more mass shootings. Remember Virginia Tech? I'm pretty sure that psychopath only used 10-round magazines. He didn't carry less ammunition. He only carried more magazines. If I remember correctly, he reloaded several times. Nobody had time to tackle him or otherwise apprehend him. Madmen will always find ways to do whatever heinous acts they wish to commit.

If you wish to stop mass shootings, you don't have to do much.

1) Simply enforce the laws that are already in place (the ones that already say that violent criminals and psychopaths can't legally buy weapons). This won't stop straw purchases or people MURDERING THEIR OWN MOTHERS to get guns, but it will do what the laws were designed to do.
2) Stop the media from glorifying these psychopaths and telling them that their name will be forever remembered if they can rack up the highest kill count. If you can name even one mass murderer, then you've already given these crazy nobodies reason to turn themselves into somebodies. Instead, focus on the victims. Let these people die as they lived: as nobodies.
3) Get rid of gun-free zones. It sounds like a hick-ish, barbaric way to handle things, but seeing that sign posted tells people that they have a target range instead of a warzone. It's like a candy shop for monsters. If people are licensed to carry, let them carry. Failing that, enforce these gun-free zones (see point #1). Make people walk through a metal detector and be inspected by security guards at every entrance. A sign and an unlocked door won't do anything to stop a crazy person from murdering your sons and daughters.

The right to free speech and press doesn't free you from social responsibility. You have to weigh profit and sensationalism against knowing that you're giving more of these crazy people crazy ideas. This is about business ethics just as much as it is about the rights of the publisher.

Be American, think guns are cool because of media and wars brainwashing the people. Buy guns. Guns get stolen/you get shot. legally obtained guns now in criminal hands. Be surprised when gun homicide rate is higher than some third world countries with high crime rates...

Guns are banned in Chicago and New York and they are the two most dangerous cities here with the highest rate of gun violence. When is the last time you heard about someone shooting up anything in texas?

What is your point? The U.S.A is much larger than China but China has more people.
You're just repeating yourself here.
Texas has much easier access to guns and more people, if guns were the problem it would be as violent as Chicago.

Look at it from a statistical perspective then. When guns are banned/heavily regulated in the US, crime rates (particularly gun crime rates) always increase noticeably. Banning guns in the US just doesn't seem to work for whatever reason and therefore it is ineffective here.

And in a situation where you're about to be murdered I'd say that a gun is quite essential to life my good sir.

I don't own a gun.
But just because I don't doesn't mean I don't feel the right to.
If I DID own a gun I would have a rubber bullet before the "real" ones so there could be a warning shot. Things like that COULD avoid death but because of the mentality of this world someone would just shoot you right back as quick as you turned your back.

Rubber bullet mass < lead bullet mass. It wouldn't fly as fast because a rubber bullet would not be designed to fly as fast as lead because the goal of that bullet is to stun, not kill. That's the point sheepysquirrel is trying to make.

Not knowing whether the person you're about to harm/ rob is armed is also a deterrent.

Isn't it possible a crime could be commited before the cops catch the offender with the weapon? Defending yourself preserves the victim and stops the crime before it happens, not just punish the criminal after the damage is done and the victim is dead.

In Glasgow we found a loophole in the logic.
Take a telescopic fishing rod in a bag along with your knife, if you're pulled: "I'm going fishing." If they question you're excuse, pull out the fishing rod. They cant say you're not going fishing. Even in the middle of the city centre you're only 5 minutes away from water (Clyde)

That would explain why Canada is so friendly, all the nice people from Europe were sent there while the rest stayed to **** **** up.
Most of us arent angry, we only get pissed off if people provoke us. Other than being the knife crime capital of Europe, we're also one of Europe's friendliest places.
And yeah, knife crime is high because a lot of people carry knives. But, If there werent as many petty criminals using them to threaten people into giving them their bag then it would drop.

I've never been to Germany, but from pictures it looks like a nice place.
I've been to Norway though, I've always thought they were quite friendly. Might just be similar interests though, the only time I'd bother to start up a conversation was on the slopes, and 90% of snowboarders and skiers are friendly, you get the odd few that hate the opposite though (I've noticed that its mostly the skiers that get pissed with the snowboarders since some snowboarders usually speed down the slope and kick up some powder that hits others.

inb4 "why would you even want to carry a knife you ******* chav?"
1. Its N.E.D in Scotland
2. Its more to do with self defence, Scotland being the knife crime capital of Europe and all, your chances of getting stabbed are fairly high, if you're going to get stabbed then you may as well stab them back, get even.